U.S. Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)

Phone: (202) 225-2511
Fax: (202) 225-5444
Email: E-mail

“Americans everywhere are outraged by San Francisco’s decision to recognize same-sex marriages. While over 70 percent of Americans already define marriage as the union of a man and woman, activist judges have taken the law into their own hands in blatant disregard for the will of the American people. Activist judges and extremist groups are quickly trying to redefine the most fundamental and universal institution by trampling on the definition of marriage. Even though Americans have repeatedly made their will known by enacting legislation that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman in 38 states, liberals still aren’t listening.

As a true constitutionalist, I support constitutional amendments reservedly and only for the most serious and critical situations. This is one of those situations. Only a constitutional amendment can ensure that marriage in the United States remains a union between one man and one woman. Most importantly, only a constitutional amendment can ensure that legislatures, not runaway courts, have the right to define any other type of relationship.”
--Rep. John T. Doolittle, February 27, 2004

U.S. Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-TX)

Phone: (202) 225-7772
Email: NONE

“On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state cannot deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The Court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenge the law, and gave the Massachusetts State Legislature 180 days to find a solution. I believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. The decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court violates this important principle. I will work diligently with my congressional colleagues and the Bush Administration to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

I strongly support the Federal Marriage Amendment, H.J.Res. 56. As a cosponsor of H.J.Res. 56, I believe we must define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and make any state law defining it in any other way unconstitutional. The Federal Marriage Amendment would effectively prevent the further undermining of marriage by our nation's courts. If this proposal comes before the full U.S. House of Representatives for consideration, I will strongly support it.”
--Rep. Michael C. Burgess

U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA)

Phone: (202) 225-4711
Fax: (202) 225-5681
Email: send an e-mail

"“I oppose gay marriage. I oppose civil unions. Goode also opposes civil unions, which Goode characterized as "a fancy name for gay marriage."
--Rep. Virgil Goode, Martinsville Bulletin Online, March 4, 2004, 2004

U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)

Phone: (202) 225-4872
Fax: (202) 225-5820
send an e-mail

"The marriage of a man and a woman is a sacred union and a fundamental element of building strong families and a strong nation"
--Rep. Mike Rogers, National Review Online, March 12, 2004

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC)

Phone: (202) 225-2452
Fax: (202) 225-2455
Email: send an e-mail

"“I am so proud of the President for standing up for the sanctity of marriage,” said Congressman Wilson. “Throughout history, marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman. America must keep its moral compass, and we cannot allow a few activist judges and officials to subvert the will of the overwhelming majority.”
--Rep. Joe Wilson, February 24, 2004

U.S. Rep. Joeseph Pitts (R-PA)

Phone: (202) 225-2411
Fax: (202) 225-2013
Email: send an e-mail

"Our kids need strong families,” said Congressman Pitts “and strong families work best when kids have a mom and a dad at home, engaged in their lives. We rely on this definition of family for stability, prosperity, and vitality. When we tinker with that definition or allow courts to throw it out the window, we’re in trouble.

“This amendment is the line in the sand. It clearly defines marriage for purposes of federal law. And it prevents courts from forcing states to adopt legal definitions that the people do not support,” said Congressman Pitts, an original co-sponsor of the FMA.
--Rep. Joeseph Pitts, February 24, 2003

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)

Phone: (202) 225-3021
Fax: (202) 225-3382
Email: Rep. Mike Pence

Describing marriage as the "union between a man and a woman," Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) called for passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Pence said that "unelected, unaccountable" judges should not be able to overturn the legal definition of marriage "that has stood for more than 200 years."

"If homosexual couples could legally marry in Massachusetts, they could seek to have their marriages recognized by other states," Pence says in the statement. "These efforts could force the U.S. Supreme Court, which last month ruled that the Constitution protects private sexual conduct between homosexuals, to decide whether state and federal laws banning same-sex marriage are constitutional."

Pence says the marriage amendment to the Constitution is needed to ensure that "only elected representatives have the right to determine the definition of marriage."

"The Amendment would still allow elected state lawmakers to determine who gets the legal benefits of marriage but would prevent them from defining marriage as anything other than the union of a man and woman," Pence says."
--Rep. Mike Pence, Talon News, February 24, 2004

U.S. Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD)

Phone: (202) 225-2721
Fax: (202) 225-2193

"I am very pleased that the President has indicated his support for a Constitutional amendment to recognize that marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. This is such a tradition in the world, in the Judeo-Christian world for centuries, such a tradition in our country, that I think that it is totally incomprehensible that someone could suggest that there could be a marriage between other than a man and a woman. So I commend the President for supporting this."
--Rep. Roscoe G Bartlett, February 24, 2004

U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC)

Phone: (202) 225-2731
Fax: (202) 225-5773
Email: mike.mcintyre@mail.house.gov

"Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman," McIntyre said. "That is the way it has been since the beginning of time, among all civilizations, all religions and all legal systems. We don't need a few judges trying to redefine marriage."

"It is our society's most basic institution," McIntyre said. "Given what has happened in places like San Francisco and Massachusetts, I think it's important that this legislation needs to be in place."
-- Rep. Mike Mcintyre, The Robesonian March 1, 2004

"We do not need a few judges trying to redefine marriage," McIntyre said.
"I think it's the only way to ensure that the definition of marriage as we have always known it remains protected," he said.
-- Rep. Mike Mcintyre, The News and Observer, February 25, 2004

U.S. Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)

Phone: (202) 225-2561
Fax: (202) 225-2563
Email: send an e-mail

"I applaud President Bush for his bold and timely commitment to protecting marriage as we have always known it. Marriage is the foundation of any good society, and to alter this essential institution is to willingly erode the ground on which our nation stands."

"A federal marriage amendment is necessary to protect individual states from having the authority of their marriage laws usurped by activist judges. Unless marriage is defined on a federal level in a common sense way, we risk a hammer-blow to a supremely important institution that is the social foundation of our nation."
--Rep. Todd Akin,February 24, 2004

"My concern is that by judicial fiat, the courts would change a word whose meaning is foundational to the way our society is structured."

"It is increasingly imperative that Congress pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, which will protect this most precious of institutions nationally and prevent such state judgments from foisting ill-informed and corrosive opinions on all states of the union."

"It is ironic that Massachusetts, a state that was essential to the establishment of religious liberty and the abolition movement, is now willing to countenance something that could undermine the very experiment in self-government its founders fought and labored so hard to achieve," concluded Akin.
--Rep. Todd Akin, November 18, 2003

"No culture ever survived the destruction of the family unit," Akin said in an interview. "When you say `gay marriage,' what you're really doing is changing the definition of what a marriage is. So I think it ultimately undermines our entire culture."

"If I were calling the shots, I think impeachment of judges is a better constitutional tool than the amendment, but the reality being where it is, with the number of liberals in the U.S. Senate, a constitutional amendment is probably the best thing we can do," Akin said.
--Rep. Todd Akin, The State.com, October 12, 2003

U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN)

Phone: (202) 225-2331
Fax: (202) 225-6475
Email: mark.kennedy@mail.house.gov

"I am a proud cosponsor of a Constitutional amendment that upholds the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Furthermore, to prevent the courts from being corrupted by radical activists, we must have judges on the bench who will interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it."
--Rep. Mark Kennedy

U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood (R-GA)

Phone: (202) 225-4101
Fax: (202) 226-0776
Email: rep.charlie.norwood@mail.house.gov

“Make no mistake about it – the sanctity of marriage in America is under attack by our nation’s most liberal and activist judges trying to legislate from the bench. President Bush is absolutely right to stand up, show his support for a constitutional amendment to defend marriage, and send a strong message to that crowd,” commented Norwood. “Now, we in Congress need to do our job by passing legislation to protect marriage from these extremist judges and get it to the President to sign.”
--Rep. Charles Norwood, February 24, 2004

U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)

Phone: (202) 225-4676
Fax: (202) 225-5870
Email: rep.musgrave@mail.house.gov

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman," said Musgrave, R-Colo., reading her proposal for a constitutional amendment that would also forbid the courts from imposing a solution.

She believes America is in a culture war. She is deeply opposed to gay marriage, though she wouldn't say why.

"I do have an opinion on the issue, but I don't think that it's appropriate to bring that into this arena because I'm not a minister. I'm a lawmaker, and I function as one. When people [sponsor legislation about] Medicare or prescription drug benefits, no one wants to delve into their souls," she said.

"I really think that if we redefined marriage, if we blur those lines of the definition of marriage that the next step is polygamy or group marriage."
--Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, ABC News,February 27, 2004

“Marriage and family are the most important institutions in existence. Unfortunately they have come under attack.” said Musgrave. “The traditional values Americans hold are being traded in for counterfeit marital unions. It is important to secure this institution and protect it from distortion.”

“Marriage as an institution is on the verge of being destroyed by an extreme movement that scraps hundreds of years of precedent based on traditional families,” said Musgrave. “This bill will help protect marriage as it has been traditionally known.”
--Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, May 22, 2003

"The issue in the forefront is the Federal Marriage Amendment, which I’m sponsoring in the House of Representatives. What we’re facing in this culture is whether we will redefine marriage. For more than 200 years in our country we’ve said that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I hope to keep that definition intact. Because of the recent Supreme Court ruling (Lawrence and Garner v. Texas) and the anticipated ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department of Public Health) homosexual marriage likely will be recognized in Massachusetts and therefore a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act will begin. I believe the law will be overthrown and that’s why we need a constitutional amendment."

"The problems in our culture are just symptoms of spiritual problems in our nation. We must return to God and biblical principles for answers."
--Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Pentecostal Evangel, October 12, 2003

U.S. Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY)

Phone: (202) 225-3501
Email: ron.lewis@mail.house.gov

"I am troubled by recent litigation in Massachusetts and Canada that undermines the institution of marriage and traditional family values. These developments make the establishment of the Federal Marriage Act in the U.S. Constitution more important than ever," Lewis said.
--Rep. Ron Lewis

U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun (R-KS)

Phone: (202) 225-6601
Fax: (202) 225-7986
Email: None

“Today the President spoke not just for himself, but for the American people. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe in the sanctity of marriage, and believe that it is and should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.”

“Across our nation, the institution of marriage is under attack. I am thankful that Kansas law protects marriage by defining it as a contract between one man and one woman, but activist courts in other states have proven that we cannot take anything for granted. Today, President Bush has taken a giant step toward combating these actions and ensuring that our families are protected.”

“Strong families are a necessity for our children. We should be working to build families up, not tear them down. That is why I join President Bush and the American people in their support for preserving the definition of marriage as defined in the Federal Marriage Amendment.”
--Rep. Jim Ryun